Healthcare in the US, new plans under Obama.

[GoldShadow]

While the States is known for being retardedly litigious, I'm quite confident that if health care were paid for by taxes, you wouldn't have Average Joes suing doctors for malpractice. For some, it's the only way they can fight your ****ed up system - suing the guy who's billing them for something they should receive automatically. Hell, I would.

That's not quite what malpractice is about. And again, you're making doctors out to be the bad guys when the fault lies in the system they work in.

 

[Deleted member]

Obviously not. The United States has some of the best (if not, the most) talented doctors in the world. The talent pool is incredibly high in the States. Yet you still have tons of ******* legal battles. Why?

Probably because they want to fake a malpractice claim to soften the blow of that hospital bill.

Anyway, I'm not trying to demonize the doctors. Sure, it's not their fault, but they sure aren't doing much to help. I'm not blaming them, however. It's up to Obama to rectify the situation before we can see progress over there. (striking doctors wouldn't help - the way your system works, some jerkoff would just replace those fighting the good fight)

 

[CRASHiC]

Actually, Canada has there own share of healthy malpractice suits as well against doctors, so I doubt this effects are market anymore than it does theirs.

 

[Aesir]

Actually, Canada has there own share of healthy malpractice suits as well against doctors, so I doubt this effects are market anymore than it does theirs.

We're far more litigation then most countries the classic example is McDonald's and the really hot coffee.

But Doctors get really screwed over with it, if they do anything they're getting sued. They really can be sued over anything, my example I pointed out early being one of them.

 

[CRASHiC]

We're far more litigation then most countries the classic example is McDonald's and the really hot coffee.

Erm, no. That case had legal standings behind it. It simply wasn't over the fact that she spilled hot coffee, the coffee was kept far above the legal temperature, giving her disfiguring scars.

Also, while you have every right to sue the doctor, as GoldShadow (or RDK, I don't remember) had pointed out, many cases are handled outside of court by a national insurance agency, and no cost is relayed to the doctors themselves. Most court cases filed do not even make it to court, and an even smaller number are won.

The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits are relatively insignificant proportions of health spending in both the U.S. (0.46%) and Canada (0.27%).

Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417

The argument that the reason health care cost in America are so high is invalid.

 

[Aesir]

I haven't looked at this case for a long time so I'm going off of memory, if you want to talk about this more I'll make a thread.

Erm, no. That case had legal standings behind it. It simply wasn't over the fact that she spilled hot coffee, the coffee was kept far above the legal temperature, giving her disfiguring scars.

There was no legal standard for how hot coffee could be. So how can they be selling coffee over the legal temp when there wasn't even a legal temp decided?

Also, while you have every right to sue the doctor, as GoldShadow (or RDK, I don't remember) had pointed out, many cases are handled outside of court by a national insurance agency, and no cost is relayed to the doctors themselves. Most court cases filed do not even make it to court, and an even smaller number are won.

The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits are relatively insignificant proportions of health spending in both the U.S. (0.46%) and Canada (0.27%).

Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417

The argument that the reason health care cost in America are so high is invalid.

huh what do you know, I was wrong.

Alrighty, fair enough.

 

[GoldShadow]

There was no legal standard for how hot coffee could be. So how can they be selling coffee over the legal temp when there wasn't even a legal temp decided?

True, but:
"The jury was further surprised to learn that during the prior ten years McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled burn claims for amounts up to and exceeding $500,000. (Although it is not clear whether it was part of the trial record, the Shriners Burn Institute had complained to the fast-food industry about the serious scalding injuries caused by super-heated coffee.)"
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbri...sePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Coffee.html

 

[Crimson King]

Final thing on the coffee topic:

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Quite the temperature difference.

 

[CRASHiC]

There was no legal standard for how hot coffee could be. So how can they be selling coffee over the legal temp when there wasn't even a legal temp decided?

My father is a state manager for Huddle House, when the Health department comes, one of the things they check is the heat of the coffee, making sure it is neither too hot, nor too cold.

Watching CNN today, a live broadcast of a town hall meeting, I saw many people claim that the health care plan was taking away are constitutional rights. I failed to see the logic here, given, most of them seemed completely uninformed when it came to the health care plan, but can anyone shine a light on just what constitutional right is being prohibited by this?

 

[Eor]

I'm pretty sure they're claiming it'll take away their right to pursuit of happiness

 

[Deleted member]

They're referring to some republican BS where liberty is defined personally and not in the larger picture

Apparently paying less taxes means they're less free to do what they want

 

[Aesir]

Last thing I'll say about the McDonalds thing in this thread, if it comes up again I'll make a thread.

True, but:
"The jury was further surprised to learn that during the prior ten years McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled burn claims for amounts up to and exceeding $500,000. (Although it is not clear whether it was part of the trial record, the Shriners Burn Institute had complained to the fast-food industry about the serious scalding injuries caused by super-heated coffee.)"
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbri...sePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Coffee.html

That number is constantly used but never put into the proper context. 700 complaints which happened over long period of time, it makes up less then one percent of their total consumer base.

What's interesting is their coffee may be super hot and they may have some strict liability here but really it's what the consumer wanted. People went to McDonald's because they had the hottest coffee, they liked it.

My father is a state manager for Huddle House, when the Health department comes, one of the things they check is the heat of the coffee, making sure it is neither too hot, nor too cold.

Which was after the fact, not before the McDonald's case.

Watching CNN today, a live broadcast of a town hall meeting, I saw many people claim that the health care plan was taking away are constitutional rights. I failed to see the logic here, given, most of them seemed completely uninformed when it came to the health care plan, but can anyone shine a light on just what constitutional right is being prohibited by this?

Because they're ******** and bought into the republican propaganda. It's also because the president is black so anything outside of the norm is going to be seen as evil. I mean look it this wonderful Gem by Sarah Palin:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's ‘death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," she wrote.

Oh man someone needs to tell Her Reagan's ****ing dead.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Oh man someone needs to tell Her Reagan's ****ing dead.

You're OK with a subjective ruling on whether you are worthy of health care rather than having a paid-for option that guarantees certain kinds of treatment?

 

[Aesir]

You're OK with a subjective ruling on whether you are worthy of health care rather than having a paid-for option that guarantees certain kinds of treatment?

Where is this coming from please clarify.

Judging from your post you have no idea what single payer health insurance is and all it's infinite variations is. Unless I'm mistaken which case I'm going to ask you to clarify.

 

[CRASHiC]

You're OK with a subjective ruling on whether you are worthy of health care rather than having a paid-for option that guarantees certain kinds of treatment?

This isn't what the panels do or not. They recommend the appropriate care for the illness.
Every state already has these in place at a state level.
Its not a change at all, except it goes to the national government, and is going to incorporate an electronic system so that accurate decisions get made faster.

 

[GoldShadow]

What panels are we talking about exactly? The so-called "death panels"?

If so, the legislation for that was a few pages about reimbursing doctors for talking to older patients every few years about advanced care, directives, how they'd like to be treated/cared for near end of life. Somehow, it got twisted into something on "death panels". (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/story?id=8295708&page=1)

Anyway, the FDA already sets the rules and recommendations on which treatments/drugs may be used for what. But I certainly hope there wouldn't be a board or panel that starts deciding how a specific illness should be treated based on some arbitrary set of criteria.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Where is this coming from please clarify.

Judging from your post you have no idea what single payer health insurance is and all it's infinite variations is. Unless I'm mistaken which case I'm going to ask you to clarify.

You are openly mocking Sarah Pailin, but I agree with her statement. Whenever someone expresses genuine concern (in this thread or anywhere else) regarding the health care system, everyone takes on a "republicans are idiots" stance and uses personal insults to further their agenda.

My reasons for disapproving of the health care bill have nothing to do with my parents, my friends, FOX News, or anything else. My reasons come strictly from looking at the bill and seeing what it entails for me and my family 20 years down the line.

This is why I get tired of these threads (and Debate Hall in general). Everyone feels necessary to insert political jabs and personal attacks instead of just continuing to discuss the topic at hand. "Conservatives are idiots." Fine. Well, get used to it. You live with millions of them. Maybe you ought to start learning how to work with them instead of eradicate them using political pressure.

 

[CRASHiC]

You are openly mocking Sarah Pailin, but I agree with her statement. Whenever someone expresses genuine concern (in this thread or anywhere else) regarding the health care system, everyone takes on a "republicans are idiots" stance and uses personal insults to further their agenda.

My reasons for disapproving of the health care bill have nothing to do with my parents, my friends, FOX News, or anything else. My reasons come strictly from looking at the bill and seeing what it entails for me and my family 20 years down the line.

This is why I get tired of these threads (and Debate Hall in general). Everyone feels necessary to insert political jabs and personal attacks instead of just continuing to discuss the topic at hand. "Conservatives are idiots." Fine. Well, get used to it. You live with millions of them. Maybe you ought to start learning how to work with them instead of eradicate them using political pressure.

Then how about the fact that what Sarah Palin said that these panels do is completely inaccurate, and the already exist on the state to state level?
Referring to them as death panels was nothing more than slander and propaganda, and was a false, vicious, malicious attack.
Also, what bill? There is no finalized bill yet, and more some generally outlines and ideas floating around, as well as several draft bills yet to be voted on or having gone through final revisions yet.
There is a difference between a valid conservative idea and political mudslinging. I have had many intelligent conversations with republicans, given, many of these are republicans that reject the modern party, and wish for the 'true' conservative ideas that died out with Nixon.
What Sarah Palin said was completely unfounded, misinformed, and down right inappropriate.

 

[RDK]

Where is Sarah Palin getting the whole "death panel" thing from? I'd like a link or something specifically from the Obama camp saying that patients will be treated according to a panel. I was under the impression that the final bill wasn't even out yet.

Again, people like Sarah Palin just enjoy making things up in their head and saying it on national television. The only problem is that they're used to getting away with it because their fanbase doesn't think twice about it.

 

[Aesir]

You are openly mocking Sarah Pailin, but I agree with her statement.

Because she's using fear tactics, they're not based on reality only on her own ignorance of the subject. Her comments just show how out of touch she is with the issue, death panels? Insurance company's already practice this.

Whenever someone expresses genuine concern (in this thread or anywhere else) regarding the health care system, everyone takes on a "republicans are idiots" stance and uses personal insults to further their agenda.

Because a good percent of the party is so out of touch with reality it's hard not to call them idiots. They're no longer the party of Lincoln, seriously unless you live in a moderate or liberal leaning state the Republicans tend to be White angry Jesus freaks. I for one am sick of seeing them go on T.V spew ideological garbage and fear tactics. This is why their party is so broken and fractured right now people are sick of it.

My reasons for disapproving of the health care bill have nothing to do with my parents, my friends, FOX News, or anything else. My reasons come strictly from looking at the bill and seeing what it entails for me and my family 20 years down the line.

Despite the fact I have my own criticisms for the bill (namely because it doesn't go far enough, mostly from the lack of a public option) I'd like to hear your own, post em up.

This is why I get tired of these threads (and Debate Hall in general). Everyone feels necessary to insert political jabs and personal attacks instead of just continuing to discuss the topic at hand. "Conservatives are idiots." Fine. Well, get used to it. You live with millions of them. Maybe you ought to start learning how to work with them instead of eradicate them using political pressure.

Why? They're living in the past without political pressure there's no way they're going to form a respectable party again.

 

[Eor]

You are openly mocking Sarah Pailin, but I agree with her statement. Whenever someone expresses genuine concern (in this thread or anywhere else) regarding the health care system, everyone takes on a "republicans are idiots" stance and uses personal insults to further their agenda.

My reasons for disapproving of the health care bill have nothing to do with my parents, my friends, FOX News, or anything else. My reasons come strictly from looking at the bill and seeing what it entails for me and my family 20 years down the line.

This is why I get tired of these threads (and Debate Hall in general). Everyone feels necessary to insert political jabs and personal attacks instead of just continuing to discuss the topic at hand. "Conservatives are idiots." Fine. Well, get used to it. You live with millions of them. Maybe you ought to start learning how to work with them instead of eradicate them using political pressure.

There are differences between being a conservative and believing Obama wants to commit mass genocide. Just because the Republican Party can't tell the difference doesn't mean we can't

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Wow, the response is "they deserve it"?

Forget this. I'll remove my idiocy from the thread.

 

[GoldShadow]

Buzz, I'd be interested in hearing about your reasons as well.

 

[M.K]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/

I just thought this article was interesting and enlightening.
It seems like the propaganda used by Obama to promote the "ability to keep your own health care plan" is misleading.
Who would've known it. -_-

 

[Aesir]

Wow, the response is "they deserve it"?

Way to down play my entire response.

I didn't say they deserve it I said they should be pressured to meet the shifting political attitude of the country. Social conservative pro business fiscal policy isn't going to cut it for them anymore.

However one could argue they deserve it, all the crap they put Dukakis and his family through, as well as the Clinton and the McCains.

(note: I'm not a fan of Dukakis, Clinton or McCain.)

 

[CRASHiC]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/

I just thought this article was interesting and enlightening.
It seems like the propaganda used by Obama to promote the "ability to keep your own health care plan" is misleading.
Who would've known it. -_-

Actually, that is a little misleading. First I can say that there will be vast changes in the senate bill compared to the House Bill. this always happens, and with a bill this large, this debated, and this important, the changes will be huge, so we can't expect anything to be final till compromises between house and senate are to be made.

Also, the plan stated in that is the based off the idea of what congress gets today, that being that health care insurance companies must meet certain criteria in order to charge x amount of money, and create plans around this criteria. This system is aviable to all insurance companies, and as anyone in the federal government can tell you who is under this option, it works exceedingly well, to the point where some people are concerned that the federal employees (from congress down to the janitor) are still going to end up with the better deal. Though, based on the current bill and talk from senate and president, the fed employees will have the same options as every citizen under the new plan. A lady had the same question for Obama on Monday.

 

[Deleted member]

What the **** is wrong with your stupid ****ing country?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/frank.heath.care/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Universal Health Care is a Nazi policy?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/08/20/bts.health.care.radio.cnn

Let's bring an ASSAULT rifle to a protest?!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/18/health.care.right.now/index.html

And just for kicks...

let's draw on the TV with pretend crayon! "John's got a bad back! "

Kindergarten. I swear to god.

 

[Crimson King]

Let's bring an ASSAULT rifle to a protest?!

How dare he do what has been done in the past and deemed a legal protest: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/1046.html

Panthers used to do it all the time, made sure everyone in the room knew, etc. This guy was just reminding the media why the second amendment exists.

 

[RDK]

That video where that psycho lady likened UHC to Nazi policies makes me ashamed of my country right now. I'm no fan of Obama, but that's just wingnut ridiculousness at its worst. Barney Frank conducted himself like a professional and was absolutely justified in acting the way he did.

Which brings up a good question: why is it that the ********, out-of-touch vocal minority is so vocal? Why do these people have so much clout in the political process? Why is it that the rest of the economic conservatives have to stand by while idiots like that chick in the CNN video make economic conservatives, as well as just Americans in general, look like complete idiots?

What can be done about this?

 

[Crimson King]

That video where that psycho lady likened UHC to Nazi policies makes me ashamed of my country right now. I'm no fan of Obama, but that's just wingnut ridiculousness at its worst. Barney Frank conducted himself like a professional and was absolutely justified in acting the way he did.

Which brings up a good question: why is it that the ********, out-of-touch vocal minority is so vocal? Why do these people have so much clout in the political process? Why is it that the rest of the economic conservatives have to stand by while idiots like that chick in the CNN video make economic conservatives, as well as just Americans in general, look like complete idiots?

What can be done about this?

They are usually the voting minority too, relying mostly on political favors to get ahead. In other words, just ignore her. Her opinions will mean absolutely nothing in the long run.

 

[CRASHiC]

The reason these guys get air time is because they make people believe that Obama's health care plan is vastly more unpopular than it is, and adds to those who don't favor it. Fox News Lite . . I mean CNN is doing what will catch the most attention, and showing people discussing intelligently as opposed to showing the most extreme of each side is better for their agenda and for their ratings.

http://boingboing.net/2009/08/11/anti-health-care-loo.html

Its one thing to see a misinformed public, but to see a misinformed journalist is just sad.

 

[Deleted member]

How dare he do what has been done in the past and deemed a legal protest: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/1046.html

Panthers used to do it all the time, made sure everyone in the room knew, etc. This guy was just reminding the media why the second amendment exists.

Your second amendment is outdated and entirely unnecessary, especially in terms of this protest. Do you think he needed an assault rifle? Was that necessary? He wanted to get attention, and if that's the only thing resulting from the amendment, then abolish it.

 

[aeghrur]

Your second amendment is outdated and entirely unnecessary, especially in terms of this protest.

It's unnecessary in terms of this protest, but it is definitely neither outdated nor unnecessary in general. The Founders of America gave us the 2nd amendment as a way to check the government. How else would we oppose a federal government when it becomes so big, it can take away our rights and restrict our freedom of speech? Would America have been able to revolt against Britain without the use of arms? I highly doubt it. The Founders feared big government, and supported revolutions should the government become oppressive. How else would we check, the people, be able to revolt without the second amendment?

Because that the goal of the second amendment is to be a check against big government, we can see that it is not outdated at all! In fact, we should support the second amendment more than ever now. The reigns of Obama and Bush will cause the government to boom out of control. In fact, it already has. Look how badly the government has messed up our economy. The Austrian school of economics totally predicted this, and it's just another example of how our government is way too big. Should they take away the 2nd amendment, we would have no way to control the ever-growing government, so the 2nd amendment is definitely not outdated.

Do you think he needed an assault rifle? Was that necessary? He wanted to get attention.

No, it wasn't necessary, but you shouldn't stereotype the second amendment like this is all it causes. The extremists do not resemble the general populous, nor does it show the actual purpose of the amendment.

if that's the only thing resulting from the amendment, then abolish it.

Because being able to own guns totally didn't help us in the American revolution.
Also, you seem to be in this idealistic world where we can amend the Constitution easily. It takes 3/4 of the states to agree to amend the constitution. I dearly hope that America isn't filled with so much big government liberals like yourself that we will actually abolish our best check against big government and the only way to allow us to revolt nowadays.

 

[RDK]

How is the 2nd Amendment entirely unnecessary? I'd like to see an answer to that.

 

[aeghrur]

How is the 2nd Amendment entirely unnecessary? I'd like to see an answer to that.

To allow us the option of a revolution when big government gets out of hand.

 

[Deleted member]

Murder is still murder. If you want to revolt, you are never going to be able to use a gun to do so. And if you're already going to revolt (which probably would break certain laws depending on how you intended) you using a gun is the least the police are looking for.

The guns were necessary (I suppose) during the American Revolution. That was a long time ago. You know what else was a long time ago? Privatized health care. However, this isn't the place for the gun control debate, so maybe someone will make that thread and I'll embarrass you guys some more, but for now, let's just agree that bringing an assault rifle to a (peaceful!) protest is absurd. Especially when you pack a handgun and ammo clips - just for good measure.

 

[RDK]

While I kind of agree about the weirdness of bringing loaded guns to a peaceful protest, I don't agree with this:

Murder is still murder. If you want to revolt, you are never going to be able to use a gun to do so. And if you're already going to revolt (which probably would break certain laws depending on how you intended) you using a gun is the least the police are looking for.

First of all, what does murder have to do with anything?

Second of all, you're never going to have to use a gun in a revolt? Great idea! I suppose that pre-Revolution Americans should have just sat down with the Brits and had a tea party with them.

And the third part doesn't even make sense. The police aren't going to be on the lookout for armed weapons during a revolt? What?

 

[aeghrur]

Ya know, Del is right.
Get this gun crap out of my thread and make your own. <3

 

[Riddle]

Your second amendment is outdated and entirely unnecessary, especially in terms of this protest. Do you think he needed an assault rifle? Was that necessary? He wanted to get attention, and if that's the only thing resulting from the amendment, then abolish it.

The second amnmendment is absolutely not completely unnecessary. An opressive government that controls all of the guns would not be nearly invincible. If our government gets out of control we need to have the ability to defend ourselves and mount a revolt.

Here's a source if you need it.

 

[GoldShadow]

Ya know, Del is right.
Get this gun crap out of my thread and make your own. <3

Yeah, I fail to see how this relates to health care.

For a second I was like "why was this in my Subscribed Threads? I never posted in a topic about gun control."